"HEREFORD TIMES" (REPORT) (Hansard, 18 November 1949)

§ Mr. Baldwin (Leominster)
During the Debate on the Local Government Boundary Commission (Dissolution) Bill on 2nd November an allegation was made by the Minister of Health that a report in the "Hereford Times" of 5th October, giving an account of a statement made by the Mayor of Hereford to the Finance and General Purposes Committee of the City Council, was incorrect. The Minister has now had an opportunity of finding out whether in fact the report in the "Hereford Times" was accurate or not, and I hope that, having found out that the report was accurate, he is prepared to apologise to the editor and staff and withdraw his allegation.
If the Minister will do this, he will only be following the example of his colleague the Minister of Labour, who, a few days ago, having found out that an article which he described as "a malicious concoction" was not in fact a malicious concoction by the papers concerned, was generous enough to come to this House and withdraw the statement he had made. If the Minister of Health, having found out that the report was accurate, will get up at this stage and apologise to the editor for his statements, and will withdraw them, I will not take up the time of the House any longer.
Since apparently the Minister is not big enough to get up and make an apology for the irresponsible and malicious attack he made on the integrity of the editor and the staff I propose to proceed—

§ The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan)
Will the hon. Member be good enough to quote in the OFFICIAL REPORT where I said that?

§ Mr. Baldwin
I did not catch what the Minister said.

§ Mr. Bevan
Where I said that the report in the "Hereford Times" was incorrect, in other words that the "Hereford Times" had itself mis-reported?

§ Mr. Baldwin
Well, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in reference to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for 2440 Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) the Minister said: I cannot follow up every lie. Also, he said: There is no limit to the capacity of the British newspaper to invent stories. What is the authority of the statement?"-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 457–8.]

§ Mr. Bevan
In what part of the statement did I say, first, that it was the "Hereford Times" that told a lie and, second, that the "Hereford Times" had mis-reported any statement?

§ Mr. Baldwin
The Minister asked where the statement was taken from and then inferred that the statement was incorrect. I will leave that to the judgment of the House.

§ Mr. Bevan
This is a characteristic example of hon. Members getting their impressions from newspapers and not from the sources. Will the hon. Member at the very beginning quote HANSARD in which I said specifically—

§ Mr. Bevan
—in which I said specifically that the "Hereford Times" had mis-reported, or that the "Hereford Times" had lied?

§ Mr. Baldwin
I can only quote the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the comments made by the Minister at that time.

§ Mr. Bing (Hornchurch)
Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?

§ Mr. Baldwin
I do not propose to give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I know the right hon. Gentleman's cleverness. He wants to draw out this Debate so that he will not have to face up to the charges which I am making about what he said in the course of his speech.

§ Mr. Bevan
On a point of Order. This is a very serious matter. I am alleged to have made a statement in the House of Commons which reflects directly upon a newspaper and the editor of that newspaper. The purpose of the Adjournment 2441 Debate is to deal with that matter. I am, therefore, entitled to ask that there shall be read out from HANSARD the statement upon which the allegations are based.

§ Mr. Baldwin
The Minister in his speech at the end of the Debate said: I at once say that I am not prepared, without further investigation, to admit that the Mayor did say this, because we all know how some of those local newspapers report local council meetings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 511.] That was in direct reply to what had been said about the "Hereford Times" and I say that that was definite enough. The Minister has had an opportunity of finding out whether this statement was correct or not, and he is not man enough now, having found out that it was incorrect, to apologise. This allegation was brought out in the course of the Debate. It was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton who wanted to find out whether in fact the Minister wanted to do away with small local councils or not. He gave as his reason the statement which had been made in the "Hereford Times" which gave a report of a deputation which had attended a meeting of non-county boroughs and later given their impression to the "Hereford Times."
I wish to say that I do not propose to take up the question of whether the Mayor and the aldermen who went to that meeting formed a correct impression or not.

§ Mr. Mellish (Rotherhithe)
Why not?

§ Mr. Baldwin
It has nothing to do with the case. I am concerned with this. They give their impression to the Finance Committee and it was reported by the "Hereford Times." That report was correct. I do not want the Minister to ride off with his usual debating skill on that line alone. We do not want any red herrings. He made allegations that this report was not correct, and he has had the chance to find out.

§ Mr. Austin (Stretford)
Why not bring in the "Sunday Express"?

§ Mr. Baldwin
Hon. Members want to bring in all sorts of things to give the Minister the chance to ride off on something else. I will quote one or two of the comments the Minister made. He said: 2442 There is no limit to the capacity of the British newspaper to invent stories. He also said: All I can say is that that report is absolutely and utterly untrue."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 2nd November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 458.] How did the Minister know whether the report was utterly untrue or not if he had not taken any steps to find out? He had had plenty of time to find out. Not only is this an attempt to damage the good name of the editor but it casts a grave reflection on the reporters who serve that journal. I am glad to know that the Institute of Journalists has sent the Minister a very strong letter of protest against the action he has taken. If the newspaper concerned was the obscure provincial newspaper which the Minister described, there would have been no need for me to call attention to this slander, but those of us who know this paper and who live in this obscure part of the world treat the Minister's statement with the contempt it deserves.
The "Hereford Times" has been appearing for 100 years, and "Berrow's Worcester Journal" is possibly the oldest newspaper in Great Britain. These newspapers are not obscure provincial newspapers. They are read all over the world, and it is for that reason that I have taken the opportunity of calling attention to what has been said. I should not like it to be thought by our friends all over the world that we are not prepared to defend the good name of newspapers of which we are so proud. I have had close business connections with both these newspapers for 40 years; I have known the editors and reporters in that time and I have the greatest respect for them. I am quite sure that they are not newspapers whose circulations would depend on sensational and sordid news, but which really give good news correctly reported. If any confirmation is needed whether this was correctly reported or not, we have the Mayor of Hereford, who was the Socialist candidate for Hereford city, and also a former mayor, Alderman E. W. Langford—

§ Mr. Bevan
These are serious matters, because this has been reported in the newspapers with an unusual amount of inaccuracy. At no time in the House of Commons in the course of that Debate did I accuse the "Hereford Times" of actually inaccurately reporting the proceedings 2443 of the council, and the hon. Member has so far failed to quote from HANSARD that I did so. What I did do was to express a view about the accuracy of some local reporting, and that view has now been confirmed.

§ Mr. Baldwin
The Debate was centred on two newspapers only and not the Press of the country. They were the "Hereford Times" and "Berrow's Worcester Journal," and the Minister said that the report was absolutely and utterly untrue. If that did not refer to the editor of the "Hereford Times," I do not know what words mean.
I want to say this. Both members of the committee who were present and heard the report of the mayor to the Finance Committee of the City Council vouch that the report as contained in the "Hereford Times" was accurate. All I can say now is that the Minister should take this opportunity of apologising to the editor and his staff for the statement he has made, and that he should do the thing which is right. I only wish that he was big enough to take the line which his colleague the Minister of Labour took.

§ Mr. Delargy (Manchester, Platting)
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) has told us quite a lot about the "Hereford Times," has given it a wonderful boost and has told us all about its long history and world-wide reputation. He has also told us about the marvellous reputation of its editors and staff. One thing which he has not quoted from the "Hereford Times," and which everyone expected him to do, is the actual story which has precipitated this controversy.
I propose to rectify that omission at once, so that hon. Members and the Press who will report this Debate will know precisely what the row is all about,—[Interruption.]—Well, I hope the Press will select this part. Here is the quotation from the "Hereford Times" of 8th October, 1949, and I want hon. Members to take very careful note of this actual report from the "Hereford Times," because I have a couple of charges of my own to make against it, and these are not "unfounded charges" but charges which I will prove. The report was as follows: The matter arose out of the report to the Finance Committee, which referred to a meet- 2444 ing held in London of representatives of non-county boroughs to consider the future of local government, what steps the Association of Municipal Corporations should be asked to take to protect the position of the non-county boroughs in any review by the Government of the structure and foundations of local authorities.' The meeting was attended by the Mayor"— I emphasise that I am still quoting— was attended by the Mayor (Alderman W. Pigott), Mr. Langford and the Town Clerk. The Mayor informed the Council that the information gained at the meeting held on Thursday of last week was, if accurate, of a startling character to those who believed in the maintenance of the democratic principle of local government. Apparently a deputation the previous day had waited on the Minister of Health…. 'It was reported,' the Mayor went on to say, that the Minister had stated that it was his intention that all the small authorities should go out of existence.' The story, therefore, is based on a report given to the local council by the Mayor. Anyone reading that story as published in the "Hereford Times" could only assume that the Mayor himself had been present at the meeting where the Minister was supposed to have made his statement. There is no other interpretation that a normal reader could place on that story. Yet, in fact, the Mayor was not present at that meeting. The meeting which he did attend was an altogether different one.
Well now, I do not accuse the "Hereford Times" of a straight, deliberate lie; but I do accuse them, most emphatically, of obscuring the truth. I do accuse them of misleading their readers. I do accuse them of mentioning two meetings but giving the clear impression that they were talking about one and the same meeting. I do accuse them of having omitted to state that the Mayor of Hereford, on whose authority this story of theirs was published, was not present at the meeting where the Minister is supposed to have made his statement.

§ Mr. Baldwin
The hon. Member is riding off on exactly the line I have mentioned. What the Mayor of Hereford said was this: The 'Hereford Times' report was exactly as it was said to have happened in the Council. It was a fair and accurate report.

§ Mr. Delargy
I am not talking about after-thoughts of the Mayor of Hereford. I am not speaking of the statements he made afterwards. I am speaking about the story itself which launched this controversy, and I have quoted it from the 2445 "Hereford Times." This startling omission—or, if hon. Members like, startling confusion between two meetings—is crucial to the issue. This omission vitiates the whole story as published in the "Hereford Times," because this omission gives to their story an authority which, without it, would be entirely lacking.
Therefore, if there is to be talk of apology one would think that the apology might have been forthcoming from the "Hereford Times," not merely to the Minister of Health, but to their readers—and their readers, we understand, are to be found in all corners of the globe—an apology to their readers who have been misled by this vital omission in their story. Did the "Hereford Times" apologise? Not a bit of it. They were screaming for apologies themselves, and I regret to say that in this chorus of screams they were joined by several other newspapers. I very much regret, in particular, that they were joined by the "Manchester Guardian"

§ Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, West)
The temperate "Manchester Guardian."

§ Mr. Delargy
—a newspaper which is normally accurate and which is normally courteous—

§ Mr. Hudson
Oh, no.

§ Mr. Delargy
—but a newspaper which, on this occasion, ranted away like a bilious, cantankerous old woman. A more peevish, bad-tempered editorial I have never before seen in this usually temperate newspaper. There were no apologies forthcoming from the "Hereford Times." The "Hereford Times" was too busy asking for apologies for itself and too busy hurling abuse at the Minister—abuse of a most degrading nature. One may read in the editorial columns of the "Hereford Times" of 5th November, 1949, a particularly degrading sneer at the circumstances of the Minister's origins. It is true, of course—everybody knows it—that the Minister was born in poor and somewhat obscure circumstances, as the newspaper says. The same thing is true of many of us on this side of the House.

§ Mr. J. P. L. Thomas (Hereford)
Will the hon. Gentleman quote that from the "Hereford Times"?

§ Mr. Delargy
By all means. The newspaper advises the Minister to remember the humble nature of his own beginnings, from whose obscurity, for the sake of the nation's unity in war and peace, it would have been better had he never emerged.

§ Mr. Skeffington-Lodge (Bedford)
Disgusting!

§ Mr. Daines (East Ham, North)
Proud of it?

§ Mr. Delargy
It is, as I say, true of many of us on this side of the House that we come from somewhat obscure origins. We are not ashamed of it. Neither ought we to be inordinately proud of it. It is merely an accident that some of us were born in the slums. But we have surely some cause to protest when it is thrown in our teeth by the editors of newspapers as though it were a crime. One thing, at all events, we can say about the present Government, and particularly about the present Minister of Health: he is doing his best to see that future generations will not be born in slums, since he is doing his best to see that there will be no slums for them to be born into.
I therefore say on the two charges I have made against the "Hereford Times"—after having quoted the "Hereford Times", mark you—first on the charge of inaccuracy based on a vital omission in their story, and secondly on the charge of cheap abuse which they have levelled against the Minister, that if any apologies are to be forthcoming they ought to be forthcoming from the editor of the "Hereford Times".

§ The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan)
I have no objection whatsoever to the fact that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) has raised this matter today. I have, however, an objection to the fact that, although he took the grave step of raising the matter on the Adjournment, he did not himself think it worth while to be more precise in what it was he was charging me with. Even now the House does not know, and I call attention to the inaccuracy of newspaper reporting here. I call attention to this as a classic instance of editors listening to the nonsense of other editors and never getting back to the source at all. It looks to me as if neither the editor of the "Hereford Times," nor the editor of the "Manchester Guardian," nor any of the 2447 editors who have wasted so mach ink, so much space, and so much malice—

§ Mr. Skeffington-Lodge
And so much abuse.

§ Mr. Bevan
—on this subject has, any one of them, taken the trouble to read HANSARD before committing themselves to paper. Not one. The hon. Member for Leominster has it in his hand, but he has not read it. If he has read it, it is obvious that he has not understood it at all. Furthermore, I also call attention to the fact that even the "News Chronicle," which gave front page space to the malicious leader of the "Manchester Guardian," has not yet found space to print the quotation from HANSARD containing the Debate of that Committee stage. They will find room for anything except the original source of the facts.
I make that the first charge against some of the newspapers of this country, that they will print tendentious headlines and articles but will not print HANSARD to enable the people themselves to make up their minds as to what are the facts. What were the facts in this case? The facts were, that at a committee of a corporation a councillor, who happened to be mayor, made a statement of what he thought he had heard someone say of what the Minister of Health had said somewhere else. This was a statement made in a committee. Afterwards, going through the minutes of the committee, the reporter of the "Hereford Times" comes across this statement. What was the statement? The statement was to the effect that at a certain deputation, at an interview not yet identified—it was not the interview I gave to the deputation of non-county boroughs, because that deputation occurred after this statement, and so no one has yet been able to identify the deputation at which I was alleged to have made this statement—

§ Mr. Baldwin
May I—

§ Mr. Bevan
No. The hon. Member has revealed so much ignorance about this subject that he is not entitled to be heard.

§ Mr. J. P. L. Thomas (Hereford)
The Minister is riding off the whole problem.

§ Mr. Bevan
I am going to deal very faithfully with the "Hereford Times" 2448 and the other papers. There is no evidence whatsoever to show to which interview it referred. I have never said that the "Hereford Times" did not accurately report what the minutes of the finance committee showed. I defy anyone to find that I did so in HANSARD.

§ Mr. Thomas
The right hon. Gentleman did so by implication.

§ Mr. Bevan
What I said was that I was not, on the spur of the moment, because no notice had been given, going to accept any unconfirmed report from a newspaper and base a Parliamentary statement upon it. I said—and I repeat it—that we are accustomed to the misreporting of certain local newspapers, and that I am not going to accept reports raised in the House of Commons, and misreported by the hon. Member who has raised it—he did not report the "Hereford Times" correctly in his intervention. I was not going to base an authoritative Ministerial statement on an unconfirmed Press report, knowing the way in which reports are sometimes made. But what happened? They took this up, through these minutes, and what did they do with it then? I have some experience of these matters. I have been an editor of a journal myself. If this statement that I was alleged to have made had actually been made by me, it would have been a very serious statement indeed.

§ Mr. Baldwin
That is not the point at all.

§ Mr. Bevan
The hon. Member must listen for a moment or leave the Chamber. It would have been a very serious statement indeed, because what is it alleged I said? It was that I had made at an unidentified interview a very important statement of Government policy in relationship to local government that we were, in fact, going to abolish all small local authorities and hand over some of their functions to regional boards. That is what I was alleged to have said. What would have happened with a reputable and sensible editor of a newspaper whose reporter brought that in? He would not question the accuracy of the newspaper reporter at all, but what he would have said was that this was so serious a statement, involving a profound departure of Government policy, that they had better confirm it before running it as a story.
2449 If the editor of the "Hereford Times" knew his job, if he were anxious to give to his readers accurate news about Government policy and not merely to perform a political stunt, he would have said: "This is serious. I doubt very much whether the Minister of Health ever made so grave a statement in this fashion. If he were going to announce an important and fundamental departure of Government policy he would have made his statement in the House of Commons and not to an unidentified deputation that was subsequently misreported." Then he would have said: "Let us find out," and he would have got into touch with the Ministry of Health. He would have asked: "Is it a fact that this is Government policy?" Oh, no, he did no such thing. He had got what he wanted. He had got a stunt. This is the stunt, and this is what he did with it. This is the heading: New threat to local Government. City, county and district councils may disappear. Then, of course, down below there is the usual technique: Hereford Mayor's statement on Minister's intentions. Having done that, all 'the others started. Here I have a whole pile of newspaper cuttings, all starting off with the "Hereford Times," which not only misled its own readers but misled all its colleagues. It is one of the characteristic examples of some of their newspapers that they do not write for their public; they write for themselves. They gossip from each other's columns.

§ Mr. J.P.L. Thomas
rose—

§ Mr. Bevan
No, no Here is another one: Extermination threat. Then we go on to other articles. The "Birmingham Post" writes a leader on local government. In other words—

§ Mr. Baldwin
The Minister is trying to ride off.

§ Mr. Bevan
The hon. Member thinks this is riding off. On top of this, after having got all these unconfirmed statements, who would have thought that what was actually in question was merely a minor point whether I was going to put 2450 the 75,000 limit on population in place of the 100,000 that the Coalition Government had put in. In point of fact, it is the present Minister of Health that has put in a smaller figure in place of the larger figure put in by the Coalition Government. It is the opposite of what has been said.
What therefore has resulted? I have received letters from the secretary and members of the deputation I had met, denying absolutely all the allegations made by the Mayor of Hereford, and therefore denying all the great apparatus of misrepresentation based upon that by those newspapers. It is upon this incredibly narrow and fragile foundation that the "Manchester Guardian" demeaned itself by one of the most bitter personal attacks made for many years—in which the "News Chronicle" persisted by printing it on the front page. If any apology ought to be forthcoming in this matter it should be an apology to the Minister of the Crown from newspapers who have behaved frivolously and maliciously in this matter.
I know that Ministers are sometimes bullied by newspapers. I will not be bullied by newspapers. I will not be. I refuse to be. I say to these people that one of the chief pieces of evidence that they no longer print the news in this country accurately is to be found in the fact that the newspapers of Great Britain never had less influence with the British public than they have at the present time. So far from Ministers being expected to mend their ways, the time has come for the newspapers to ask themselves whether their code of professional conduct ought not to be overhauled before they fall even lower in the public esteem.

§ Mr. J. P. L. Thomas (Hereford)
Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was—